Posted - 2008.09.03 16:53:00 - [782]

 

Edited by: Zareph on 03/09/2008 17:12:19
(Continued from Above)

Now, Titans do more damage to the jammer. If you have more than say two in a given system the jammer smokes like a computer hit by an EMP. It goes down hard, and can't be brought back online for 30m (the time it takes to re-online it) but if it tries to come up with >2 titans in a system it can't start the online process until the number of titans are less <=2. The RP reason can easily be due to the massive size of the jump engines for these monsters they put out so much something or other interference that they cause a anomaly of some kind that crashes the jammer.

So now you have a weakness in over-defending a station. This offers an advantage though for over loading a system and crashing jammers though, so there needs to be a disadvantage to loading a system with ships if you're on the offensive.

The disadvantage of bringing a lot of capitls onto the field is with a large number of capitals cause problems locking on to cyno beacons on the way out. After a certain number of ships, when you try and jump out you have an x% of chance of failure to lock, and it's 2m 30s before you can say jump again. As more ships get in system, you have an x%+(x*y) chance of failure, with the next opportunity to jump out being even higher. Some formula could be done. This keeps people from jumping 80 capitals, wreaking havoc, and then just popping back out. Real fights to the death happen.

The third challenge the blob o capitals create is the remote rep spider where POS gunners can no longer cause enough damage even with SDM 5 on a single ship before all the remote reppers switch to the guy being shot.

Maybe a simple 'the more people repairing you, the less repair per cycle happens' so if two guys are fixing you up, you're ok, but if three latch on you have a 'max repair amount' you can do per cycle. Triage of course can bonus this that's what it's for, but you can't have 5 triaged carriers repairing one guy for their max triage can't happen. So now after say 2 triaged ships are doing reps on a given ship any more just splits the max rep between them.

This change doesn't affect POSes. If you want to bring in 10 carriers to triage & rep, they can. It's just the RP reason could be that the ship is so small that many capital repair beams coming in start to interfere with them after say 3 or so beams hit the ship.

You could extended that to BS RRBS blobs, but it should be much higher because their repair systems are significantly smaller than a capital ship one if you wanted, though i'm not sure that is necessarily needed and is secondary to this wall of text.

So those changes alone would solve two sides of the coin. The damage a gun can do to a carrier doesn't get a ridiculous buff that would start instapopping a BS gang, and the strategy of giant blobs of ships gets changed because depending on what the other guy brings the risk/reward changes because now you could loose ships as they can't jump out. Defenders can duck their capitals into shields if things go south and the offensive guys are now in trouble if they can't stop the interdiction and the gunners of the defenders have a fighting chance of taking out some of the DPS.

Support fleets are valuable as heavy interdiction could really pin people down if they fail to jump out due to a jump out fail and the associated timer that keeps them from locking on to the exit cyno. Gunners can take this to their advantage and defensive dreads could focus fire some.

This doesn't 'drastically' change 0.0 space, but also throws a wrench into some of the ways you do this in that whomever lags out/brings the most damage doesn't win by default. The more they bring, the greater the risk they won't make it out in time.

Posted - 2008.09.03 17:26:00 - [784]

 

Edited by: Zareph on 03/09/2008 17:39:05
The last part is the number of titans in a given system, and the doomsday.

The doomsday is an awesome Offensive and Defensive weapon. I don't want to change the weapon itself.

However I do want to change what happens when more than one are done in a system.

The doomsday is a massive bomb. It's unforgiving and does huge amounts of damage to anything near it. The thing is, it doesn't damage the space around teh ship, just people. There's no kinetic/emp/thermal shockwave that flys out in all directions like there is. The only thing I'm trying to model a doomsday off of is a thermonuclear weapon.

A doomsday should damage space, and it should also spawn off a scannable encounter for someone to find.

The encounter is easy, spawn a field of salvage. This is where the wrecks go. The lag they induce is an extreme problem of creating hundreds of wrecks. Basically, the wrecks spawn off into an encounter that somebody has to scan down and fine. This keeps the field of battle somewhat clear.

The second part is the more dooms days within a system, the more damage to said system and the risk of damage affecting a titan (up to and including destroying said titan) happens. So your first couple three of doomsdays don't do anything to the titans that fire them. They do their usual thing. I don't have a good idea for a 'window' of damage that this affects them but I'm thinking it needs to be a good 24 - 72 hours. It takes time to heal from this kind of damage.

So after say 3 doomsdays during this period of time things start to break. Jump Bridges are the first to crash, they start acting like overloaded capital ships in that sometimes, they don't let you leave. there is a downtime before you can try again. The more doomsdays in a system the harder the jump bridges (POS JBs) are.

Traffic control starts kicking in on the gates. Coming in/going out of a given system via a regular gate starts to fail.

After six doomsdays within a 6 hour period the doomsday now damages the titan for the same amount it damages the rest of the guys. You can tank it easily.

after eight to ten within a 12 hour period the doomsday device takes damage from feedback. nanopaste can repair it, but the damage is a variable random number that can destroy the doomsday device itself. and cause a feedback across the highs breaking anything else. you could use 'heat damage' mechanic to do this. Maybe this could be fixed at an SMA so the doomsday device itself isn't destroyed completely unusable, but it has to be repaired at a POS somewhere else before it can be used again.

Then, after 12 doomsdays have been fired within this 24 - 72 hour window the damage done to the titan is the dommsday itself + a random number multiplier based on teh time between doomsdays and the window of 'max doomsdays' in a given system that could generate enough damage to destroy the titan itself in a feedback loop. The doomsday doesn't get any stronger outside the titan it still does it's damage, however the 'feedback loop' created by all these doomsdays in a given system overload and cause a blowback into the titan. So a defender can 'sacrifice' the asset trying to repel the invaders, and an invader can sacrifice a titan if they want to in order to win that last fight, or whatever.

These are my thoughts. All of these don't seem like 'massive' changes, but they are changes. They could easily affect the game though and change the 'blob' mechanics that happen in 0.0, making life interesting, but not game changing.

Posted - 2008.09.09 17:56:00 - [786]

 

Edited by: Somealt Ofmine on 09/09/2008 17:58:39


I wrote up and cleaned up my proposal for "facts on the ground" sov mechanics. Rather than posting it here, since it would take multiple posts, here's a Linky.

Any mechanic that is based on pre-determined, fixed control points is pretty much doomed to failure. There are already entities in the game that could blob a half-dozen points until the servers cry uncle at the same time. Introducing mechanics with multiple fixed control points will only encourage the formation of more of them.

You need to think further outside the box CCP. Sov needs to be based on actual control and occupancy, rather than an artifical "flag" to capture or timer based mini-game. You need to get rid of pre-determined battle points altogether.

Large-scale, playable fleet battles would be great to have, but I think it's way past time to put up the white flag and just admit that they aren't happening. Winning or losing in this game shouldn't come down to who can best tolearate and manage lag.

Posted - 2008.09.09 22:15:00 - [788]

 

Given the updates, this is probably out-dated and worthless. Oh well, here it is.

Why don't you just use the population of a system/constellation to determine sov. How many pilots are in the system per hour, on average, over the last week? This would allow small alliances to claim sov without massive investments. It will also allow a more realistic view of sovereignty as to be in control of space you have to be there.

This would work as follows. Your alliance has moved into a system and taken over. You, as a group are not large, but are fairly active. Over the last 168 hours (thats one week) you averaged a population of 24 pilots per hour in system. That sounds minimal, but you must consider that it considers all 24 hours per day, for the last 7 days. Thanks to downtime, there is at least one hour of 0 population every day.

If you get invaded by a group of 24 pilots from another alliance who stay in your system from downtime to downtime for 2 days straight, at the end of the second day they will have only accrued 6.57 pph (pilots per hour, over the last 168 hours). They don't challenge your sov.

If you get invaded by a group of 468 members of another alliance, and they hang out and harass you and blow up your assets, after 8 hours they have 22.3 pph. After 9 hours they will have 25.1 pph and will initiate a transfer of sov, which I'm assuming will occur at the next downtime.

Say the group of 468 was just harassing you and they leave the system after 9 hours, leaving their pph at 25.1. If no one beats that rate, the attacking group will have sov for the next week, until their occupied hours start to slip off of the 168 hour grid and your group's 24 pph is back above their now 22.3 and falling pph. That is assuming you maintained a pph of 24 the whole time.

This system will allow for not having to deploy Cap ships to gain sov. It will also allow POS killing to be more directed. If you want to take sov, move in, and kill the POS's that allow the current residents to stay in system and keep their pph up.

You would need, however, an option to assign your pph to another alliance. This would be to allow space "rental" and other allaince to alliance agreements.

You should also allow a system that is say, sov 2, to also apply a percentage(say 10%) of its pph to it constellational neighbor systems. This would given an inherent bonus to gaining sov in all systems in a constellation, as each would end up boosting it's self. As system A gets sov 2 it gives an additional 10% of it's pph to system B. After a while, system B will gain sov 2, and give an additional 10% of its pph to its neighbors, systems C and A. In this method, A and B are boosting each other at 10%, and getting back another 1% of that in the return from the other system.

Generating a double cycle of boosting will allow a smaller group to gain a meaningful hold in a constellation, while still making them vulnerable to highly organized efforts of large groups of pilots.

If you go one step further, and install a pph cap(168 hour average, not actually hour by hour) this mechanic won't make big alliances upset proof. In the event of a tie at the cap, sov will go null, then the first to lower the other's pph will win sov.

You should also put a pph minimum for sov to ensure systems aren't being claimed by random traffic. 2 pph should suffice for this.

Additionally, you should put in an inactivity timer to avert afk'ing in station to keep sov up. Ideally it would be some kind of clicky with a countdown before it logs you out. This would help prevent cov ops from being inadvertantly logged, while logging people who aren't at the puter. After 25mins of inactivity, you get a pop up message saying; "You are being logged off in [TIMER]" The timer starts at 5 minutes and counts down. Say a pilot doesn't want to be logged, give them an ESC menu check box; "I wish to not be auto logged, at the expense of not being counted toward my alliance's Pilots Per Hour rating".

Posted - 2008.10.01 14:34:00 - [790]

 

Edited by: bodycollecter on 01/10/2008 14:36:06
Well I would go for a triple play.

but before i get into that lets do this.

Pos's are null and void for sov. pos's are just assets that can be destroyed. make them run off ice products alone and forget about pos's thats a failed aspect.

Make sov implemented by an outpost.
Once an outpost is constructed in a constellation it gives you sov 1 after 10 days of the outpost in a system. A sov module/tower can be placed in another system in the constellation.
Once the Sov mod/tower/beacon whichever you want to call it is placed. You can place x amount of defense guns on the sov mod and the station. After 20 days of having the 1st sov mod you can place one more Sov mod in the constellation maxing out at 3 sov claiming structures per constellation. Allowing for Destroyable guns to be placed at gates no more than 4. ( once all three Sov mods are up for 10 days You can construct Capital ships.)

Note: IF Station and 2 Sov mods are up Every system in the constellation is controlled .

In order to take Sov the attacking force must destroy both sov mods and disable station at the same time. Meaning That all three are linked if you attack one by itself the other 2 will repair it. Meaning to take the sov you have to split up the fleets meaning less people in one system.

Once station is set up for Sov you set a timer for when it will come out. Since station and sov mods are linked they will all come out together. Attackers choose time to attack defenders choose time to defend.

Make the Sov mods have to be probed But when Attacked Sov mods create a beacon until it is repaired or destroyed.

This allows for splitting of the fleets. No pos spamming for sove. But makes it more difficult for a fleet to come in and blob it out. They will have to be strategically placed.

anyhow thats my idea

Signed/BC

Posted - 2008.10.02 20:25:00 - [792]

 

Cont...

I say 50/50 because a 100% industrial corp would fail. Why? That hulk and or hauler would get blown up not only causing an isk loss but then he would be inside the station gaining less points plus he'd lose points for getting blown up.

It would also mean that pirates invading your territory and overwhelming you could even make you lose sov without them actually gaining it or even wanting it. Simply because they blow up enough ships to reduce your score below the minimum etc etc. If you can't keep control you don't deserve it.

You could also add rules like...
+1 for blowing up a ship (suicide runs would raise the defenders sov score)
+1 per day per POS
-10 for losing a POS

I'm hesitant to even evolve POS's in the math but you get the point. If you base it on a vote/score for each system you can adjust/balance the math to whatever works well. Everything revolves around the lvl of participation. Not on how big of a blob you can make to overwhelm a control point.

Its also gives multiple ways to attack. You can try out fighting them. You can just sit in station building points the safe way. You can smash there POS's. You can hit and run on there miners. OR... you can do them all...:)

Remember the corp/alliance has to claim it. So a neutral ratting in your space means nothing. He's not building points for an opponent OR taking points away from you unless he blows you up. He's also not making points for you ether. Unless you blow him up...:)

Its would be hard to balance but once you got it setup right it would be a way better system than what is currently being used. If you want to include control point type stuff make outposts attackable etc but the real importance is the points lost or gained by that attack.

Sorry just an idea. Don't mean to rattle on...

Posted - 2008.10.04 22:18:00 - [794]

 

If u can get into a backend 0.0 system a POS and deploy it and not claim it then good luck but most 0.0 alliances are pvp freaks and will probably soon find it anyway unless u use cynos in and out

Posted - 2008.10.07 08:09:00 - [796]

 

Edited by: Tuttomenui II on 07/10/2008 08:16:51
I have a little idea to add to all the rest im new enough to eve im not really sure how all this works, but I have always thought it be nice to be able to place a POS within weapons range of a stargate, Say you have the highest SOV possible for a system it give you the option to put a POS at stargates. Then to counteract it make it so that Covert ops ships that can fit the Covert ops cloak can activate the cloak while cloaked by a gate so they never uncloak thus allowing them access to jump in other covert ops ships. Makes it harder for enemies to move around in a system you have high SOV in. Plus gets me a cloak that works better, win/win I say.

Alos to add to this a little more I also thought it be cool to place a POS in Deadspace somewhere, you know until I found out you can only place them at moons. You could make a system add deadspace encounter locations at a certain SOV level and then place SOV POS' at these deadspace locations to improve the SOV lvl, then enemies would have to scan out the deadspace SOV POS' as they would only show on the overview to who ever owns them. would make it interesting.

So something like this:
SOV 1-2: control a set number of moons
SOV 3-4: Control a set number of planets
SOV 5: Control all deadspace locations
*Take this and add it to the collective*

Posted - 2008.10.11 12:34:00 - [798]

 

Edited by: Tykkis on 12/10/2008 11:17:35
Edited by: Tykkis on 11/10/2008 20:54:15
Various RTS(real time strategy games) have had a good balanced system for years. Games like Homeworld, Command and Conquer, Warcraft and many more. Why not use the analogy allready invented.

Heres a quick idea of how it could be implemented to EVE.

1 home base(constellation or a system) with strong defence that you'd have to blob if you wanna destroy the opposition. You could build POS and other powerful and beneficial structures to controlled constellation. Structures like Science labs, jump bridges, strong defensive turrets, shield generators, large moon harvesting arrays, clone bays, reprocessing and factories. Factory would be only place where you could build modules for structures. Every structure would need special fuels that you would only get from moons.

You could build small moon harvesting arrays at the factory which you could then transport to any moon you want to, even outside your controlled constellation. Small base would be like a small moonharvester, container for resources, few weak turrets and shield generator. Putting up small bases would be quite fast and cheap as they will be destroyed easily. Small moonharvesting bases have quite little defence so small gangs could take them quite fast (like 5*HAC could take it out in 10mins). Somehow(invulnerability) make minimum time to beat the base 5mins so defence has even some time to arrive.

Say you would have to moonharvest 2 constellations to keep 1 home base online or 4 moons for every structure. You'd have to transfer the resources from small moonharvesting base to the home base defence systems. Every turret, shield, factory, clonebay and whatever would need amount of fuel to keep online. if they go offline, it would take long time to get them back online(like 5 days or so). Home base should have limited storage capacity so that rich corps couldn't stockpile modules, fuel and spare structures for more than month use. Fuel that is needed for structures, could only be gained from 0.0(perhaps low sec too).

This could give corp leaders some interesting strategic planning for the base building(do you prefer more defence over science and production, or perhaps jump bridges to boost defensive response times), some boring resource transporting, fast paced small gang warfare from fighting over the resources. Controlled constellation would provide very safe ratting and mining area and the structures would boost corp science and production.

The wars between corps/alliances could be lot different as there would be multiple ways to fight. For example:
-Destroy enemy factory and then deny their resources would mean corp/alliance would have to build factory first before they could rebuild their small moonharvesting arrays.
-With Brute force BLOB(and huge losses) directly destroy the base.
-Guerrilla warfare to deny resources and then take on the weak base.
-Or you could just destroy the moonharvester defenses and steal the fuel and keep farming your weak opponents.
-Take on the known enemy corp haulers with use or locator agents and deny resources that way.

This grew a bit too much. And maybe i've loved RTS games too much to see this system doesn't fit EVE.

Posted - 2008.10.26 14:14:00 - [800]

 

Posted - 2008.11.06 01:10:00 - [802]

 

Edited by: Aaron Mirrorsaver on 06/11/2008 01:19:19
Edited by: Aaron Mirrorsaver on 06/11/2008 01:16:16
why not simply remove the reinforced timer crap.

BUFF hp a bit. maybe the defense capabilityies of towers, and remove the whole reinforced thing for SOV poses.

Ok so two types of towers. Industrial tower( can only have moon miners etc on it) can be reinforced, so allow for a defense fleet to save it later on since it has no defences of its own.

second type of tower = a sov battle tower. Give it 2 times the offense capability as as a current large tower, make it have no strontium. So no reinforced mode, it dies it dies...

somethings to remember are alot of people are cap capable now, even tho it is still a small percetentage of all the players in game. 2) Towers have not really been buffed since caps came into play? So i think a battle tower which poses a serious threat to a capital fleet thats not well managed would be good, give it like 2-3 times the shield HP, and more so 2-3 times the fitting it now has. Like 30 carriers and 40 dreads standard nearly go for a tower? Make a tower able to make this fleet actually have to use the logistics of those carriers to either keep each other alive, or the dreads, and not only just ok we on tower, siege cycle timer is 2, dreads go siege.


Also I read the update on page 19, i dont know what everyones response to this was, but it sounded similar to how faction warfare is, you do some goals and get a count down on a capture, one thing this puts in jepordy is security of your space while away. One of the cool things about eve is you basicallly have virtual frontlines. Yeah someone can send a roaming gang all the way into your space and kill your farmers, but they cant threaten your space sov in anyway, so the front line on any attack is basically the outward lying station systems and their towers, or some other strategic choke point.

This enables alliances to leave their home space and go on a campaign. Imagine for example if ABC alliance holding deklein left to go fight RZR in branch, and WorstAllianceEver with a 50 man frigate gang came and started a countdown on a capture point for your space, it'd be ridiculous.

therefore no back and forth for weeks on a stront timer management, gameplay more hectic, space is still safe unless you get attacked by a large invading force, so you can still go on campaigns elsewhere.

what you think?

Posted - 2008.11.12 20:57:00 - [804]

 

Another part the sov plexs could be used also for constelation and for regional sov

Posted - 2008.11.14 05:26:00 - [806]

 

Some ideas of production items: Livestock, grain, recreation vehicles, electronic parts etc.

Some item would need to be used as fuel to get the colony started and provided to the colony weekly in order for the population to grow. But after certain modules are built the colony would start producing some of those items themselves for self use and export.

* You could go with NPC ran space forces if the ships are provided and so forth to combat the “we don’t live online issues”. This would mean that you could form a navy when you have complete control of at least one constellation. The ships would have to built and provided for the navy and the quality of the NPC troops would determine the cost of keeping those ships in space.

POS’es:

The developers kind of gave me this idea. Moons should produce ores just like asteroid belts do. Most moons are usually just large asteroids or groups of asteroids that have merged. Each month a moon’s ore type would change. So you could get a different ore type or it could stay the same. The type of ore a moon would spawn would be from a pool of ores that could be had in that system.

Alchemy would go a few steps further now. Reactions would be based off of mineral types gotten from ice fields and asteroids and moons and colonies. If a colony can produce a resource for reactions so do existing colonies in empire. This gives a more equal access to tech 2 base minerals the quantities used for the reactions are just very large. Giving more use to large transports and supply lines and further reasons to develop colonies and hold systems to mine moons.

A moon mining array is about the size of a small POS tower. But has half the shields and armor of a current small tower. A POS will run for only 10 hours a day. When those 10 hours happen would be up to the person running the POS. A POS would burn fuel just like it does now but only for 10 hours a day. A POS would mine at the mining rate of the person who setup the POS. And a miner could control up to 5 POS’s depending on his level of POS management skill.

A POS could only be attacked during the 10 hours of operation a day. So most POS operators will set that time to be when they or their corpmates are online to defend it.

The other 10 hours a day the POS is down for repairs and refitting and runs dark so can’t be targeted.

If attacked during its hours of operation the POS will defend itself for as long as it can and assuming it is fitted with defenses. Otherwise it can be destroyed by the attacker only during those 10 hours.


Nation building:

When a constellation is controlled by one alliance, that alliance should have the option of forming a new nation/faction. This would open up a whole new level of game play where one nation/faction could declare itself as allied to one of the 4 major nations and would be like Kaldor and other minor factions that belong to certain nations now. This would then give that “nation” the right to place agents commission ship designs as well as commission a new skill for their ships to use for piloting or use a combination of skills for their ship based on the design.


So there are some of the ways I feel would enhance the game play and not be to intensive to add to the game.

End of part 2 of 2

Posted - 2008.11.21 08:22:00 - [808]

 

Ok, i've not read every post but I have read some and there are excellent ideas around.

Sovereignty is the real issue here. and sovereignty needs to be worked for and looked after.

Sovereignty is about providing security for your corp, alliance and most especially THE PEOPLE OF THESE SYSTEMS.

What do I mean? The systems of 0.0 are not uninhabited, they are just not occupied by the Empires.

So these people will want protection, particularly from the Hostile NPC corps and they will want to buy products from the empires, and sell to them.

Sovereignty can be about supplying services to the people of 0.0 systems.

For example, you have a 100 man corp. You are interested in Constellation Z which has 6 systems.

Your first target is System A. Here you go in and the CEO of the Corporation gets an option on System Sovereignty Contract.

This Contract runs for 1 week or perhaps longer (Varying in length depending upon certain factors to be decided) This contract specifies that the Corporation must supply certain services within certain timeframes, Your corp must kill a Minimum X number of NPC's in system, Must Supply 10,000m3 units of resources from empire to the planet, must export 20,000m3 units of goods from the planet to a specific empire (destinations could be variable i.e. 1 week to Amarr, next to Jita) Must maintain gates (and perhaps some new local structures too)

In return the corp or alliance gets Sovereignty for the period of the contract at level 1. After a predetermined time you can advance to Sovereignty level 2, 3 & 4.

Each level allows you to not only anchor POS's on moons but also structures too like Capital Ship Arrays etc. In addition Outposts can be built in systems only at certain sovereignty level 2 and above, if you lose sovereignty level 2 they can fall into "disrepair and become unusable until sovereignty returns to level 2" sovereignty of the constellation capital will allow you to expand outward and you could at sovereignty level 4, accept contracts for the whole constellation. If you controlled multiple Constellations in a region you could get a regional contract which would give you sovereignty level 5. (level 5 bonuses to be decided)

Now like any contract, it can be declared null & void if the Corp or Alliance does not keep to the terms of the contract. These contracts can then be offered up for new corporations to take advantage of.

However to prevent failure of the contract and loss of sovereignty because the corp could not complete the entire contract, you can have standings. Standings will allow your corp of instead of losing the contract to pay a ISK fine and lose standings with the Planetary Government that issued the contract. When Standings fall below x level you lose the contract.

Contracts would be a bit of work for the Corporation but could have enormous benefits. For instance Accepting the contract could give you a 10% refining bonus in system, an Extra ISK bonus on rat kills. Access to the special moon surveys that pinpoint small reserves of high end minerals (or perhaps special moon minerals that can be refined into Advanced minerals quickly), that you can mine for, Access to frequency's that help find exploration sites in system, and perhaps also Local chat channel would only be available to Sovereignty holders.

I'll turn to how you could challenge sovereignty in my next post.

Posted - 2008.11.21 16:29:00 - [810]

 

Originally by: Cailais
Any mechanic that is based on pre-determined, fixed control points is pretty much doomed to failure. There are already entities in the game that could blob a half-dozen points until the servers cry uncle at the same time. Introducing mechanics with multiple fixed control points will only encourage the formation of more of them.

You need to think further outside the box CCP. Sov needs to be based on actual control and occupancy, rather than an artifical "flag" to capture or timer based mini-game. You need to get rid of pre-determined battle points altogether.

Large-scale, playable fleet battles would be great to have, but I think it's way past time to put up the white flag and just admit that they aren't happening. Winning or losing in this game shouldn't come down to who can best tolearate and manage lag.[/quote

---

There in lies the main problem - demonstrating 'control & occupancy'. As Ive mentioned elsewhere in this thread I agree with SomealtOfmine's basic principal that 'fixed points' are blob magnets if used to determine 'Soveriegnty'.

My personal view is that Soveriegnty is perhaps more intrinsicaly linked to 'political support'. For example:

Let's say pilots could in some fashion indicate their 'support' to a Soveriegn Alliance on entering a star system or constellation. By doing so they (even though they are not part of the Sov Alliance) contribute to a Soveriegnty 'score' and in doing so become 'blue' to that Soveriegn entity.

In the same fashion a pilot who is 'at war' detracts from the Soveriegnty 'score'. Neutral pilots offering no support or opposal either way would have no effect, but might suffer minor sec rating losses for agression.

Now provided the Rate of drain or Increase for the Sov Score is gradual this system could work well. Even if a large blob enters to drain the Sov Score of its adversary it must remain in place - and continue to remain in place - for a considerable period of time: it can't just 'tank rush' and win. And even if it does win it needs support from a '3rd party' or other pilots from outside its Alliance to increase its Sov Score.

Its therefore advantageous for an Alliance claiming Soveriegnty to gather support, welcome traders, smaller corps and even individuals to its space - essentially courting for political support.

C.

---

Its a nice idea but are you not then restricting players to simply in a certain way.

Should i have the ISK and cap and super cap power to do so. I should have the option of being able to use it as a sledge hammer to keep or take sov. I may not want to ally with anyone (maybe its my alliances ethos or some such) But i actually have the raw numbers and firepower to do make things happen. But I would not be able to maintain or take sov because i wont play nice.